how hard is it to count to five? i'm assuming he's got five fingers, and if he has to move to the next hand, it's too many posts! doesn't matter if it's one over or 80 over, he knew the restriction and he blew it, end of story.

You know, I wouldn't be this way - but he did it before - and not only was he let back in, but he was let back in and allowed to post as much as he wanted. He's had countless opportunities in the past, not just this time. It's these endless opportunities that make this all not worth it.

You didn't complain when I made the decision to instate a limit without conference. You didn't complain when I banned b_mardle's IP without conference. You didn't complain when K gave Wraith2 a custom title without having met the customary requirement --not only without conference--but in direct opposition to my response. Neither did I, I'm sure you noticed. You didn't complain when I said "yes" we'd combine your number of posts to count toward your custom title without conference. No, I don't think any of those are disproportionate actions.

of course i didn't complain when you banned mardle's IP, he was fucking with my account, that's a different issue entirely! and not that it did any good anyway, you know what i mean? but that's not your fault...adam made you all mods, but none of you have a clue how to deal with anything technical on this site.

but here is an issue even a child can understand. let's look at it this way, you tell a child "5 cookies today, ok? you take more than five cookies from the cookie jar and no tv for you tonight" well, supernanny would have something to say about your parenting skills if you can't maintain a consistent position!

here you have an entire group of witnesses who know you imposed the rule yourself, and now you're taking it back?!

come to think of it, you probably should have conferred with adam & k on all of these matters.

I think someone just discovered the formula for a genuine blockbuster thread. False promises of banning, rampant bitching, prominent members threatening to leave and so on.Keep this up and the new golden era of TW is upon us!

Schizo: I really, really, really wish this didn't result in PHOENIX leaving (again), but I honestly think she made the right decision.

Except that she didn't though, did she? Ohramona FUCKED UP, hence:

In reply to:

ohrodoh!: edit. Okay, he tried to rectify it but wasn't able too. This one will slide cause I already said it would.

Which is precisely why she's in the mess she's in now. Ohro never checked that Dogz's deleted post did indeed leave an icky skidmark on the 'inbred' thread and has subsequently been back-peddling with 'Oh, I'd let you have another chance. ' And then she proceeded to lie several times about going out on a limb with wayward decision making, ergo:

In reply to:

ohro: You didn't complain when I made the decision to instate a limit without conference.

I MYSELF conferred with YOU on its appropriateness for the very fact it was impossible for a dingbat like Dogz to miscount a number as low as five ESPECIALLY in less than a week into his restriction - as opposed to the trickier seven. On this point and all the other conditions to be met surrounding Dogz's ban, the forum was unanimous.

In reply to:

You didn't complain when I banned b_mardle's IP without conference.

This is also a lie. My 'Freedom of Information' thread divulged the fact from several posters that various moderators had indeed conferred on this topic, as had the administrator Adam.*****

In reply to:

You didn't complain when K gave Wraith2 a custom title without having met the customary requirement --not only without conference--but in direct opposition to my response. Neither did I, I'm sure you noticed.

Well, here's a clue: Posters in the past (dukewhite & dice, et al.) have claimed custom titles before hitting the 5000 target without opposition from fellow posters. No one SERIOUSLY considers the duty of conferring titles to be the equivalent of deciding whether to ban a poster, despite it being among your most important duties.

And actually, yes you did complain with about as much seriousness as the situation warranted.

In reply to:

X bozos removed

Ah, I see Pablo's had a spate of activity. No doubt my response here is jeopardised by ignoring his carefully crafted arguments, so instead I'll opt for a blanket rebuttal:

In reply to:

ghostlove:

Jeez, the defence rests its case?

Naturally, I wanted to make this post much longer, exposing the intricacies of whatever arguments were being had, but there weren't any. However, I'll provide a summary version:

His recent output has not been worse than the average of this forum. Also there are at least two threads (phoenix' thread in this forum, the movie poster thread and now also this one) which are more or less about him. Post-limit or not, I doubt one can demand that someone does not take part in an open discussion about himself.

The whole limit is just about keeping him from ruining every thread or falling back into his annoying posting behavior. So far it seems to work, so I give a fuck about one post more or less.

This is also a lie. My 'Freedom of Information' thread divulged the fact from several posters that various moderators had indeed conferred on this topic, as had the administrator Adam.

We had? It did?

Funny, I did not notice there was a thread related to the hacking in the mods forum. Nor did I know Billy's IP had been banned, until after the banning had taken place.

Also, it is my opinion that Ohro made the right decision in not banning Dogz, especially as he did try to rectify his error (be it that he's an idiot).

And it's interesting that no matter what the mods do, we're always doing a bad job. First when we ban legitimate offenders (people making dozens of posts per day, all containing the same sentence), people are complaining that we're limiting the freedom of speech on this site. Then when we don't ban a poster at the request of a small number of posters, we're doing a bad job again.

I'm not saying that most of Dogz's posts wouldn't be crap, because they are. But amongst them are also some legitimate contributions to the site, and in my opinion banning him for an offense he actually tried to rectify would be going too far.

On the other hand, if he does the same thing again tomorrow...

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

I do not know the exact circumstances, but my impression from what Ohro wrote in the mods forum after banning the IP is that she did not communicate with Adam about the subject either and it was in fact solely her own decision. Adam has not said anything on the subject so I do not know for certain.

Additionally, contrary to what Prism seems to think, the Pictures! of Marquis' bottom?, please -thread was not about the password thieving attempts.

Actually, since we're dealing in quotes, here's what Ohro wrote in the mods forum:

"i just went ahead & banned the IP right away because to me, this is a pretty serious offense. not that the banning would prevent the alleged thief from trying again, only from posting. right?"

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Well, not exactly. Let's just say instead that ohro could spend a week taking potshots at my dead grandparents and I'd still give her benefit of the doubt. Though I think I'd support her decisions in this matter even if she wasn't a kickass mamajama.

I'm trying not to become one of those posters I always hated on the Classic Dogzbanning threads (i.e. "Well, Dogz doesn't really bother *me* so I don't see what the problem is"), and I'm sure as *shit* not gonna take sides in a bitchout amongst a handful of my all-time favorite posters.

So yeah, I'm just gonna say again that I feel ohro's leniency on a one-post violation of a rather-strict-in-the-first-place posting limit was the best thing to do.

This is what a poor person do for a scholarshipHe turned around, got a face full of hollow tipsBut don't be madHe died for the flag

Most of the people who complain about him reside in the coffee shop and rarely venture to the Bowie section, whereas, most of Ant's better contributions are on the Bowie section, so why not just restrict his non Bowie posting, this way he can still post and most of the people who throw hissy fits about him will be able to blissfully ignore him, with just five non-Bowie posts a day.

-------------------------------------------------------I'm not a piece of teenage wildlife

I don't understand what the hub bub is all about. There should be no restrictions at all on the number of posts a person makes, no matter what the quality of the content is. If the quality of content was the defining issue, half or more of our posts would be deleted shortly after the post.

Indeed Auntie, I did err. You make it sound like something to be horrendously ashamed of. Tell me about your last error-free day.

When I got home from the day job and signed in, the first thing I saw was a PM from dogz telling me he'd posted 6 times, was sorry, and had rectified the situation. Having no issue with people fixing their mistakes I said "No problem". I came down to this thread and posted that he'd fixed it so I planned to let it slide. No sooner had I clicked that submit button then another PM from dogz appeared telling me he'd tried to fix it but was too late.

So, here I'd told dogz and TW that he wasn't going to be punished this time. So what's my error? Not gathering all the facts first? Well boo shit! Slap me naked and call me Wanda the earth is gonna end now, except for TW which will go on to serve as purgatory!

Then I had this little moral kinda conundrum to deal with. A rule--one that I had penned myself--could be bent, or my word could be broken. No issue. I'm way more comfortable bending a rule than breaking my word and good luck to ye all who live in a world where black is black and white is white and I pray that all the decisions you're faced with making are cut and dry enough for ya!

In reply to:

Which is precisely why she's in the mess she's in now.

I'm not in any mess. What I did was right and I feel good about it.

In reply to:

I MYSELF conferred with YOU

Actually, you commented after I had already posted the ban limit. And besides, wasn't this comment in reference to my *need* to confer with other mods before I act?

In reply to:

You didn't complain when I banned b_mardle's IP without conference.

You are incorrect. How does that feel to have publicly made a mistake? K explained this accurately. One less picayune point for me to discharge, thank Jebux.

In reply to:

Well, here's a clue: Posters in the past (dukewhite & dice, et al.) have claimed custom titles before hitting the 5000 target without opposition from fellow posters. No one SERIOUSLY considers the duty of conferring titles to be the equivalent of deciding whether to ban a poster, despite it being among your most important duties.

First, may I say Meooow? I heard recently that one of those names was given because there'd been a clerical error in tabulating his posts. I remember when the other was given, it was explained as a joke that endured after the ha-ha moment. You know, Auntie? These examples I offered to ani where intended to illustrate that leniencies are overlooked when they are aimed at those we like, not that I have all these fabulous powers. I don't know why your panties are so wadded up!

In reply to:

And actually, yes you did complain with about as much seriousness as the situation warranted.

Thank you dude, for admitting you understood this was tongue-in-cheek. You scared me for a minute there.

In reply to:

2) Ohro LIED

.

No I didn't. I erred, and I've been honest.

In reply to:

I am become death: the defender of Dogz

I know it seems that way, Marquis, but actually you are the defender of proper moral behavior, and my word.

In reply to:

The whole limit is just about keeping him from ruining every thread or falling back into his annoying posting behavior. So far it seems to work,

Indeed, th0mas, and before today's little fiasco, both PHOENIX and ani had commented that this wasn't so bad with dogz's posting limit. So why is it all the sudden intolerable, when he maintains the same restriction?

In reply to:

"i just went ahead & banned the IP right away because to me, this is a pretty serious offense. not that the banning would prevent the alleged thief from trying again, only from posting. right?"

See ani? (Well I hope you and BOO come back one day and see.) I'm not stupid!

In reply to:

Most of the people who complain about him reside in the coffee shop and rarely venture to the Bowie section, whereas, most of Ant's better contributions are on the Bowie section, so why not just restrict his non Bowie posting, this way he can still post and most of the people who throw hissy fits about him will be able to blissfully ignore him, with just five non-Bowie posts a day.

You know, actually dogz suggested this to me himself, but I rejected it thinking that my TWers wouldn't like it. Could it be that I've made another mistake? Discuss.

Little boys who eavesdrop deserve to hear the truth, and the truth is usually devastating.

As for dogz, this is not the first time he's had a daily limit imposed upon him, exceeded it and been let off by the mods. The degree of tolerance afforded him makes one wonder if they've actually secretly decided to keep him around (while paying lip service to the complaints of those who moan about him).

Dogz broke his limit. And I hate him. A lot. But it was only once. By 1 post.

Ohro didn't ban him, which may or may not have been a mistake; I myself wouldn't have banned him for that (despite the fact that I hate him. A lot) but, then again, no one's ever said I'd make a good mod.

But, yeah, dogz violated his very easy to remember limit within a week of its imposement.

He was not banned this time but surely must be next time. And there will be a next time. And then there will be celebration.

Does dogz making one more posts than his limit really negate all the other things you like about this forum?

Please don't leave, you know I love you.

Oh, and Ohro: I did my darndest last night with a 21 year old English major whose name I have for got but, due to the fact that I had spent the preceding 4 hours at an all-you-can-drink beer garden, it was hard to maintain the neccessary charm/ability to stand up straight required to take a girl home.

Dogz broke his limit. And I hate him. A lot. But it was only once. By 1 post.

I think you'll find that's twice. Each time he had such a hard time controlling himself that it was only days after restrictions could be placed on him. Further, it seems when someone is banned here they are allowed back after a short amount of time and allowed to actually outdo themselves on what they were originally banned for. My beef with his being let off isn't because he went one over the limit one time, to be fair I'd let the slide absolutely. It's the fact that he's got the metephorical equivalent of a criminal record that stretches out for years. In justice terms it would normally lead to a harsher penalty than the first offense he commited.

In reply to:

He was not banned this time but surely must be next time. And there will be a next time. And then there will be celebration.

I've heard all that before, and still Dogz ended up here for another two years posting up to 20/30 times in one day. However there is a chance of a peace settlement, a very good idea :

Pablo-Picasso : The excellent comprimise

In reply to:

Most of the people who complain about him reside in the coffee shop and rarely venture to the Bowie section, whereas, most of Ant's better contributions are on the Bowie section, so why not just restrict his non Bowie posting, this way he can still post and most of the people who throw hissy fits about him will be able to blissfully ignore him, with just five non-Bowie posts a day.

Now, five posts in the coffee shop alone would pretty much mean I'm not coming back, because other boards are moderated to an extent that a retard that floods the boards is banned straight up, no discussion, no argument, just relief. I can actually enjoy my times on those boards, but not here.

It has to be a compromise though. If Dogz is allowed 5 in the coffee shop and carte blanche elsewhere that means he's actually being rewarded for going over his limit!

But banning Dogz from the coffee shop instead of all TW is a good compromise and I'm giving it a shot because I really like TW. So what do the judges who preside over the Dogz case think of this?

This creating of new rules is so incredibly german that it makes me wonder when we will have restricitons for everything, everyone and all. The 5 posts rule is a over-the-thumb idea to improve the quality of the forum (and as a side effect of DDogz own posts). It was not established to punish him or as a pedagogical attempt. So were are not talking about a criminal record or whatever. However - if you compare his posting style before and after the first ban, you'll see that while he fell back into oneliners and still did not manage to find reasons for his weird opinions he at least stopped being aggressive towards other posters and also developed some kind of humour. I know that it is annoying to stop one's vendetta against someone everytime the other side gets reasonable again. But perhaps the ability to do so is just the prize you have to pay for your lack of retardedness.

That said, I am against a rule which allows DDogz to flood the other boards. I have no problem with increasing his posting limit but the whole thing shouldn't become to complicated and stay an over-the-thumb rule focussed on the result for the forum, instead of getting a feast for the lawyers among us to create endless discussions.

It's not that I'd leave out of spite or because I don't get my own way - which is what it sounds like when you put it like that.

It's simply making it clear that being here is a pain when Dogz pokes his nose into every nook and cranny, and to make clear that if the moderators here are simply lax and tolerant of long term pests then that's fine with them, but I'll be sadly saying goodbye.

My whole reaction to this farce was "Here we go again, it's not going to change around here - it's staying the same as when I left last time."

In reply to:

This creating of new rules is so incredibly german

Then every other board on the net is German . The moderators must be, because I think rules for Dogz is stupid. He should have been banned flat out a long time ago.

It's not that I'd leave out of spite or because I don't get my own way - which is what it sounds like when you put it like that.

In the name of all fairness, that has been the impression I've got as well. You're using the fact that you're an excellent poster as a weapon to get an inferior poster evicted from the boards.

In reply to:

As for dogz, this is not the first time he's had a daily limit imposed upon him, exceeded it and been let off by the mods. The degree of tolerance afforded him makes one wonder if they've actually secretly decided to keep him around (while paying lip service to the complaints of those who moan about him).

In the name of all fairness, as a mod I don't think that posting an excessive amount (I'd say he isn't flooding the boards, which would be a different case altogether) isn't sufficient grounds for banning.

Yes, I know the following argument will be that he was banned for that before. But then, as th0mas noted, before his first ban Dogz was not only posting uncontrollably but also being aggressive towards other posters. However, Ohro made a decision on this which she felt is right and I'm backing her up.

Additionally, as a poster, not as a mod, I feel that the posting limits imposed on Dogz are ridiculous because we know he can't hold them for a long time. It's very handy, to introduce a rule we know he will break so that there will be an excuse to ban him even though he didn't actually break any (previous existing) rules.

In reply to:

If Dogz is allowed 5 in the coffee shop and carte blanche elsewhere that means he's actually being rewarded for going over his limit!

Not really, we'd be just further refining his restrictions, which might have taken place even if he did not break the restriction.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Lets forget all the stuff about "posting limits", "threats of leaving", "aggression", "the worth of one TWer over another" and all the stuff that gets bandied about in these countless Dogz threads.

The simple matter only needs to be stated quite easily. If I can't stand Dogz (From this point on) then I leave. No threats. No bye threads. No warnings. None of those things so I can be sure you know that I'm not using my status here to try and get him banned. OK?

I'm starting with a clean Dogz slate. I'm unbozoing him and treating him like any new poster I've never heard of before. I'm ignoring all the hubbub created by him breaking the rules you guys set for him. I don't quite understand why you set them if you had no intention of doing anything if he broke them. Why didn't you just say the rule is posting excessively instead of saying 5 or less posts????? You made a rule that didn't really mean anything.

I'm pretending that none of this happened. From here on in, if I feel like I just can't stomach TW anymore I'll simply walk away. As such :

In reply to:

In the name of all fairness, that has been the impression I've got as well. You're using the fact that you're an excellent poster as a weapon to get an inferior poster evicted from the boards.

That won't be the impression you get now.

In reply to:

In the name of all fairness, as a mod I don't think that posting an excessive amount (I'd say he isn't flooding the boards, which would be a different case altogether) isn't sufficient grounds for banning.

The five post rule wasn't mine, it was Ohro's, and she imposed it without conferring with the rest of us (as, if memory serves, she did the first time around). Also note that my criticism to the rule was as a an individual poster, not as a mod.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Additionally, as a poster, not as a mod, I feel that the posting limits imposed on Dogz are ridiculous because we know he can't hold them for a long time. It's very handy, to introduce a rule we know he will break so that there will be an excuse to ban him even though he didn't actually break any (previous existing) rules

So as a moderator you think that imposing limits on the amount dogz posts is sensible? And if so why do you think it isn't sensible as a poster? I'm not trying any sass on you are being smarmy and smart here Sys, I'm actually confused about having two opposite viewpoints as mod/poster.

As a mod I'm standing by decisions already made (even if they were made without my consent) because I trust my fellow mods had a good reason for imposing whatever rules and restrictions they imposed.

Privately I think it's stupid because if we want to cater to the desires of those who want Dogz banned we might as well ban him straight away and not impose rules to give an excuse. Because, like I said before, we know he'll slip at some point.

I know this is confusing and I'm not trying to be smarmy on purpose. But hey, Prism called for transparency in decision-making on these boards and he got just that.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Privately I think it's stupid because if we want to cater to the desires of those who want Dogz banned we might as well ban him straight away and not impose rules to give an excuse. Because, like I said before, we know he'll slip at some point.

Look, we actually agree on that point. When I went bonko, threw my arms up in the air and screamed "We gotta do something about Dogz!" I really meant either a banning or the ability to request his absence from threads we make and don't want him (accidentally even) to ruin. So shit, that would have meant he could post 5000 times a day and not bother us. That old chestnut () the old "Five posts or under" rule made me swear like fuck at my monitor screen.

I also knew that Dogz would not hold out for 5 posts or less for very long though. I guessed 6 days and won a bet. (And I'm sure the bookies are holding on to everyone's dividends, disputing whether the bet said "Over 5" or "Banned")

Because I knew, and I knew the moderators knew, I actually thought - "Oh, this is a nicer way of banning him I guess" But I had no doubt that ohramona knew, and that she was delivering the death sentence to Dogz. The stay of execution felt like a stab in the heart. An unfullfilled unspoken promise.

But yeah. 5 posts or less is stupid just like you say.

In reply to:

As a mod I'm standing by decisions already made (even if they were made without my consent) because I trust my fellow mods had a good reason for imposing whatever rules and restrictions they imposed.

Oh you politician you!!!

Anyway, like I said. Wanna keep it nice and simple. No threats. Clean slate. I'll go silently in the night so there's none of that "using my status" to ban someone talk bandied about anymore. (I did that right at the start, in the "Make This Place OK" thread, but in this thread I swear my purpose was otherwise.)

As for dogz, this is not the first time he's had a daily limit imposed upon him, exceeded it and been let off by the mods.

Not quite. He was let off the hook for overposting before, that's right, but instead he got banned temporarily a little later. And it worked. After his spell (was it three months?) was over he returned with better posting habits and stuck to them for quite a while. But as it seems the effect of the temp banning has worn off and so I would suggest another temporary ban instead. It's more effective and easy to handle without having to argue about leniancy. Even if it is as well handled as it was here by ohro.

I would say that your views as a poster are more important than your views as a mod, as they should be your own unbiased views and not bound by whatever rules you have to go by.

Regarding multiple posting, Monkeyboy, because he used to read the board in threaded mode, would on times create sometimes up to 5 posts in a row replying to people, this was something that Ant was blasted for last time he was banned. I didn't hear anyone complain about Monkeyboy doing that, and what goes for one poster should go for everyone. I know, and I am sure Ant would agree with me that sometimes his replies are excessive, and could be made more concise, but there has to be a consistency. Also when a thread is created about him, then it is only natural, as someone mentioned yesterday that he replies. Now it could be argued that monkeyboy is 'funny' or whatever, but then we are getting into the argument of taste, and I have been shouted down many times in the past that what I think is crap others might think is funny. If it goes one way it has to be applied in the other.

One further point, at the moment there is a thread in the coffee shop taking the piss out of him, on the whole it has been lighthearted and fun, with the exception of some of Ziggfried's contributions. Anthony has faced that thread with the greatest of humour, some people probably wouldn't, even when the content has gotten questionable. People seem to forget the amount of flak that gets thrown at him and how he rarely takes offence at it and joins in the joke. He should be respected for that if nothing else.

I think K and Ohramona have made some good decisions in this thread. Well done to them.

-------------------------------------------------------I'm not a piece of teenage wildlife

I'm sure as *shit* not gonna take sides in a bitchout amongst a handful of my all-time favorite posters

Why not?

I agree with th0mas. Every thread these days is about Dogz. The people who hate Dogz the most start threads about him all the time. Maybe I haven't paid enough attention, but if PHOENIX hates Dogz, and wants him to leave, then why is PHOENIX always making posts about Dogz? That is an invitation to Dogz.

Also, wouldn't it be better for the Dogz-haters to just bozo Dogz? Isn't that what the bozo-filter is for? A lot of people here seem to like Dogz. It wouldn't be fair to them to have Dogz leave just because PHOENIX and a handful of other people dislike Dogz.

First of all, I want to apologize to everybody for my little mistake yesterday. This was a genuine! mistake and it will not happen again. From now on I will keep an abbacus at the side of my computer so that I can count my posts as I go through the day.

Ohramona, you are correct when you say I am deeply embarassed, and ashamed to come back here.

In reply to:

Pablo most of Ant's better contributions are on the Bowie section, so why not just restrict his non Bowie posting

YES! This is a good idea and might be? a way for me to vent some excess steam without riling up the other posters.

Your new title is just FAB!

In reply to:

Monkeyboy One could easily ask you the same thing, Pablo.

I knew you were teasing when you said you were leaving! Well come back.

In reply to:

Pablo I think K and Ohramona have made some good decisions in this thread. Well done to them.

Yes, well said, Alan, and I shall be forever indebited to their good nature.

This has been discussed before and I agree to the anti-dogz crowd in that point - a lot of people answer dogz posts one or the other way, so it is impossible to ignore him just by bozoing him. It simply does not work that way.

The 5 posts rule was established to keep Dogz from posting exessivly. At least that was my impression. In case I was wrong about that, I think we should have used the good old method of kicking him directly (because of not liking his looks) without pretending to be something else than fucking nazis.

In case I was right and the rule was made to improve the forum rather than simply offering the opportunity to ban Dogz it worked for the last days and still works when he posts a message more. So the rule serves its purpose even if "offenders" are not banned immediatly.

Of course there are online communities which would not hesitate to ban anyone just posting in dogz' style for a whole day. But I doubt on any of those one could find a monkeyboy, beltene, phoenix for more than 24 hours or linked images of cunts or a tubgirl or whatever. Even I was banned in a german forum for posting pretty much the same style as here - how humourless can a mod to be even too much challenged my such a small dosis of humour. In the end it all had to do with the moderators' taste. So the only method for a mod to be able to ban without a specific break of rules (and before establishing the 5 post rule it was exactly that) is using like- or dislike patterns. I am glad that this is not the method our mods are using and that they are even discussing those issues openly in the forum instead of just exchanging some PMs with the personal favourites and the boards' bullies in order to keep their own asses safe.

Does this mean you wait for Dogz to break the rule again or is it about the forum not annoying you and being a place to spend some time at?

It's about me trying to forget about all of his past indescretions and this whole controversy and seeing if I can just enjoy myself. It didn't work when I first got back here, but perhaps...just perhaps, after all this nonsense Dogz will settle down. I know I can't count on any "x number of posts" rule really being useful. I can only count on what the mods see as unruly in their eyes. So no, I won't be counting posts or waiting for him to break the rule.

It also means that if Dogz replies to a thread I'm involved in and says something stupid I won't hesitate to call him on it, but I won't go all ballistic on him because of what he's done in the past.

What good does it do for me to bash my head against a brick wall? It appears that for a poster to be banned here it would take something really outrageous. That's a good thing (ie, Monkeyboy and others would have been banned from many other MBs and I would have missed out on their valued contributions) and a bad thing (ie Dogz would have lasted about 4 days and we would never even remember who he was today)

I don't really have any other option. The mods seem firm on keeping Dogz, and I'd really like to stay.

Maybe that's a german thing but in case there is a "but" after the "that's right", it means that the author of the sentece does not mean that something is completly right. It is right apart from the fact delivered after the "but". So it is not quite right. Also not wrong. It is a bit complicated - we germans like that a lot.

Okay - I guess my attempt uses too many words at once... so perhaps EJ can have another go. Perhaps he can do it a bit more tabloid style with less words so it becomes easier for you to get into our funny german way of speaking the british language.

In reply to:

Phoenix: It's about me trying to forget about all of his past indescretions and this whole controversy and seeing if I can just enjoy myself.

Perhaps you should read what I said ("this is not the first time he's had a daily limit imposed upon him, exceeded it and been let off by the mods") and then read what EJ said ("He was let off the hook for overposting before") and tell me how that's "not quite", though a second later it's "that's right"?

In reply to:

Perhaps he can do it a bit more tabloid style with less words so it becomes easier for you to get into our funny german way of speaking the british language

I'm sure as *shit* not gonna take sides in a bitchout amongst a handful of my all-time favorite posters--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why not?

Well, simply put, cause I just don't care that much one way or the other what happens to Dogz, and because I feel that ohro and K have defended their actions and positions well enough on this thread to satisfy me. If it's not good enough for Prism, Phoenix, or Anisette*, that's their decision.

Basically, I'm all about the love.

As a side note: K, if I ever call your mod credentials into question, please refer me to this thread, because I think your assessment of the situation has been spot on, and I commend you.

This is what a poor person do for a scholarshipHe turned around, got a face full of hollow tipsBut don't be madHe died for the flag

Perhaps you should read what I said and then read what EJ said and tell me how that's "not quite", though a second later it's "that's right"?

Okay... I knew my previous attempt would be too much for you. Let me try again:

That is what you said in your post:1. he's had a daily limit 2. he exceeded it3. he has been let off by the mods.

This is what EJ answered:1. he's had a daily limit 2. he exceeded it3. he has been let off by the mods4. but he got banned temporarily. after the ban was over he returned with better posting habits and stuck to them for a while

Now it is your turn - spot the bit of information which EJ gave us but you did not. If you find it you will also find the key to your question, how EJ can find your post "not quite" right, but parts of it "right".

Hint: Maybe it will be easier for you if you first find the bits both posts have in common. The one left will be the one just appearing in EJs post and not in yours.

Hint II: As I pointed out before - too much between the lines for you obviously - it has something to do with the word "but".

If I give you any further hints it will be too easy, i mean really, really freakin' easy. And we both think you can do that on your own, don't we? So feel encouraged to give it a try.

My two cents: your original post gave the impression there had been no repercussions for Dogz as a result of his first daily limit. Which isn't true, since he was eventually banned, as EJ pointed out. Hence, it is true that Dogz was left off the hook once before, but it isn't true that he had gone completely without punishment, which is what you seemed to originally suggest.

In reply to:

Have we yet?

Not as far as I know. of course, as this thread demonstrates, that doesn't mean much these days.

In reply to:

As a side note: K, if I ever call your mod credentials into question, please refer me to this thread, because I think your assessment of the situation has been spot on, and I commend you.

Thank you. Thanks also to Pablo, it's nice to know that I've been doing a good job for a change.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

My two cents: your original post gave the impression there had been no repercussions for Dogz as a result of his first daily limit. Which isn't true, since he was eventually banned, as EJ pointed out. Hence, it is true that Dogz was left off the hook once before, but it isn't true that he had gone completely without punishment, which is what you seemed to originally suggest.

K, so I've been away and can't be bothered to wade thru all the posts of you 24-7ers, so can someone just tell me why exactly Dogz has a daily limit all of a sudden?

If we're going with daily limits, I suggest we limit Phoenix to 2 or 3 a day. First post you read, you think "Hmmm, moderately amusing, slightly enlightening, added a little to my TW reading experience".

Second post is like "Hmmm, that's almost the same as the last one. Added little to my TW experience".

Third post is like "Just shut up already. We get you're trying to show us how clever and wonderfully flip you are."

There's a few others on this thread that post best when it's once a month rather than 10 times every Dogz thread.

At the very least, Dogz provides the entertainment of watching a bunch of kids with big egos and no lives wondering why he gets all the attention when they're just soooooo much smarter.

"Do we all think you're a bitch now? Good God no girl! The straights are all trying to gage how long before it's decent to hit on you, and the gays are thinking how wonderful, she has more time to go shopping with me!"- Ryan cheers me up

While I'm anticipating Shelle's oh-so witty reply, some more food for thought:

In reply to:

EJ Sunday 8/24/04As said before: If dd74 sticks to what he did before he is out. Quickly and for good.

Moderators, it would be interesting to have some clarification on this point, in hindsight.

In reply to:

EJ Sunday 08/16/06But as it seems the effect of the temp banning has worn off and so I would suggest another temporary ban instead. It's more effective and easy to handle without having to argue about leniancy.[sic]

Christian, you know I love you when you go for the soft option.

It would be interesting to hear what exactly you think has "worn off" since the last ban. If one examines his posts of two years ago, he was posting in exactly the same style and with the same frequency as he is now. The only post-ban change as I remember it was that his punctuation improved remarkably to that of a five-year-old.

In reply to:

Ohramona 08/16/06I think the best lesson to be learned by Mardell here is to never presume to know my intention unless I've specifically told you. I've given some representation of my intention here already.

Mardell, you pathetic, putrid has-been, you have been told. Never presume that at least two of the moderators have the slightest idea what they're doing.

In reply to:

Pablo-picasso: most of Ant's better contributions are on the Bowie section

A link to some of these alleged "better contributions" would be much appreciated.

Anyway, judging by your avatar it seems you finally came out of the closet after all these years. Does your mother know?

Honestly pianocraft,sometimes I think you've never met a real junkie;the things you say about Bowie in his cocaine era, are hilarious~Cucumber

Aaaah crap. And here I was thinking everybody at TW were shitting themselves with laughter as I pile on repetative so-so jokes. (No, I do, really, somebody stop me for Christ's sake...)

Shelle, I do so want to "add to your TW experience". I'll keep my head low and not get you down. I can't help it if my TW ego is like a rampaging out of control train. But don't blame the people that say "Keep it coming!", "We want more," and "This is so much fun." Blame me, for not keeping in mind that I'm a sick TW-addicted human being and not the ultimate source of fun for the whole planet.

Edit - Seeing as you've missed a lot of TW reading, maybe there are jokes of mine that you would have liked and missed. I simply can't believe that apon reading my first joke in a thread you aren't pissing your pants with painfull belly-laughs. I mean, the third joke that's just the same as the first two I can understand. But how can you only be moderately amused by that asskicking first joke?

Is this just the tip of the iceberg? I'm too worried to start a thread asking if people like me, because that would be a very silly thing for someone who is experiencing delusions of grandeur to do.

Oh fuck. Could this post just be an extension of other ones I've done in the past? Is this bloated addendum supposed to be funny? Am I trying to be all "low self esteem" and therefore charming? Will any of those options be even viable now that I've mentioned them?

Fucking hell Shelle, now you've gone and given me a psychological TW episode.

Moderators, it would be interesting to have some clarification on this point, in hindsight.

Two things from me:Firstly I don't think that dd74 is as horrible a poster as he was at the time of the first ban. He doesn't hijack every available thread the way he used to and also has long stopped his silly attempts at patronising others. And I don't see a singular event which in my view would justify a full ban. Still his constant posting of utter crap in too many fresh threads is quite a pain.

Secondly and in contrast to what I said at the time of the first banning I would prefer a new temporary ban (if any) to a full ban. It worked well the last time and could be helpful again. He came back as a better poster and I don't see why it shouldn't work again.

But before such a temporary ban it would be necessary to make clear what we want him to do or not to do when he gets his chance to come back.

Wow, she really messed you up good didn't she? And with just one post too.

It didn't. I'm just playing around. Shelle wants entertainment for her investment, so I gave her sadly chastened PHOENIX. I know she adores my posts.

However - Your post did mess me up good, for I am genuinly pissed off by it. Putting Dogz aside this is the first time I've been pissed off since returning. I mean really pissed off, not playing the fool pissed off.

In high school I flunked my first driving test. But my so-called friends decided to make up a story that I crashed the fucking car. It stuck. No-one would ever believe that I hadn't. I was pissed off. It's the same pissed off I have right now.

So yeah, it messed me up good because I fooled around but Dogz and you got all excited about it. So my whole 'taking it in my stride' playing around with it means DIDDLEY NOW!

I won't say anything to Dogz, because he's a special guy with special needs. But I say to you Bamboo7 - You can go suck on my big fat cock you piece of shit. Fucking clueless retard.

Now this is a pissed-off PHOENIX post. Go check my answer to Shelle. See the difference? No, you probably don't and never will.

Third post is like "Just shut up already. We get you're trying to show us how clever and wonderfully flip you are."Why didn't somebody tell me??!!??

Excited? Hardly. I was just curious as to how deeply it affected you seeing as I had to read that line in every thread I opened, sometimes in alternate colors!

Well why didn't you say that silly? I thought you were referring to my "Staying away from me apparently" comment.

I wanted to see what kind of "hell yeah!" comments I could get to the view in my signature and what fun I could have from that. Zero fun apparently because all that happened was Dogz had a bizzare dig at me for upsetting Shelle (?????).

I don't take great stock in signatures and change them around every 5 posts or so these days. I'm just gonna stick to something simple and random - if there is one thing I'm bad (even more than others) at it's signature composing.

As for PHOENIX being schizophrenic. Ohhh baby, he's got much more psychologically wrong with him than that. That's why I retired him from service a year or so ago.

Next time, clarity from me you and everybody. Yeah hell that's right! Clarity on the house boys, I'm pickin' up the tab!

WARNING : Post may contain sarcasm and jovial silly business. May be harmful to moronic TWers.

If you'd been around earlier on TW ( than leaving it for so long to return ) you would have noticed my total devotion to the poster called "shelle" I will defend and stand up for her always, shelle is an extremely clever and attractive lady, I voted her to be Miss Teenage Wildlife, now you know my reason for my so-called dig at you.

If you'd been around earlier on TW ( than leaving it for so long to return ) you would have noticed my total devotion to the poster called "shelle" I will defend and stand up for her always, shelle is an extremely clever and attractive lady, I voted her to be Miss Teenage Wildlife, now you know my reason for my so-called dig at you.

I think the question is where haven't I been. Or to put it in terms that even Hannibal the Can'tBall might understand, I've been toing and froing in my usual manner from pillar to port, airport to hotel room, casual affair to exotic encounter, in the name of b usiness and pleasure.

Also, I can't seem to work up much of a TW appetite these days. Seems like nearly all my favorite posters are posting hardly or not at all these days, and I can't warm to the B team.

More importantly, how the Hell have you been, Tones?

"Do we all think you're a bitch now? Good God no girl! The straights are all trying to gage how long before it's decent to hit on you, and the gays are thinking how wonderful, she has more time to go shopping with me!"- Ryan cheers me up

I thought perhaps you put the Keith Jarrett recommendation on a tape loop, forgot about TW, and had an epiphany. I'm doing fine now that my 8 to 4 career is over and only composing occupies my time. It's very rewarding. My publicist put out a press release the other day and Mirror of the New in Honolulu features an hour of my music Sunday night. PM me if you want a CD of the radio show.

Oh, on the topic of limits and quality of posts etc... Let there be no limits. People should be free to express themselves. It's all entertainment anyway (for better or for worse) and for those interminable boring posts, we can all just skip over them so easily.

A question: if Dogz keeps editing his posts to respond to everything anyway, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the post limit in the first place? Are we honestly any better off now than we were before?

So, I've just spent the last hour watching WBC videos on YouTube, interspersed (for my own sanity?) with my reading of Lovecraft's stories of Cthulhu, and now that my mind's numb enough I'm ready to have another shot:

In reply to:

K: Funny, I did not notice there was a thread related to the hacking in the mods forum. Nor did I know Billy's IP had been banned, until after the banning had taken place.

In that case, where did the caring, compassionate Ohro go? It seems desperately out of character for her to ban Billy without first sending him a sympathetic PM, encouraging him to mend his ways? I took the original comment to mean, perhaps wrongly, that Adam and Ohro had consulted one another; however, I'll take your word for it, for the moment.

So if no threads or PMs were made between mods, Ohro went against 'official procedures' twice; once in banning Billy at her own discretion, and again in writing privately to Dogz saying that he would not be banned.

May I suggest that all such decisions in future follow the procedure outlined by K, quoted above, i.e. the mods are all in alignment privately before a verdict is decided upon?

K, you complained in your post that the Mods are criticised no matter what decisions they make, and this is to some extent true. What I find disturbing, however, is not the judgements themselves (which, if I may say so, are nevertheless toss), but the lack of consistency.

If the mods had all agreed on their private 'Should we ban Dogz now?' thread that Dogz should not have been banned, despite going over his 5-a-day limit, I would've been less critical than I am at seeing one mod acting on hir own initiative. I broached the same problem on Adam's guidelines about posting one's genitals; at the end of the thread, Adam, EJ and Ohro were all shown to be in complete disagreement, making the guidelines a farce.

In reply to:

K: Actually, since we're dealing in quotes, here's what Ohro wrote in the mods forum:

"i just went ahead & banned the IP right away because to me, this is a pretty serious offense. not that the banning would prevent the alleged thief from trying again, only from posting. right?"

Er, so there was a thread in the mod forum after all?

I sense a pattern emerging here:

1) Ohro screwed up her mod duties and tried to cover up by getting K to provide an alibi; however2) K screwed up and lied also.

Psst! The sweepstakes say EJ's next!

In reply to:

Ohro: Actually, you commented after I had already posted the ban limit. And besides, wasn't this comment in reference to my *need* to confer with other mods before I act?

As I read it, the ban limit was only imposed in your following post; I was replying to the suggestion of whether five was a suitable figure, to which I raised my objection that Dogz can't count to five. My second point -- that the lower the limit the better -- was in agreement.

In reply to:

Ohro: Thank you dude, for admitting you understood this was tongue-in-cheek. You scared me for a minute there.

Yes, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek, though the joke only works if you were semi-seriously implying that K should not have given out a custom title on a whim. Which, given the subsequent fiasco over Strawman's title, suggests that you do indeed consider these titles to be weighty things.

The broader point, however, is that even if a single mod did err, as you put it, NONE of the decisions discussed in thread are IRREVERSIBLE.

Naturally, I had plenty more to say, some of it facetious, about how custom titles are handed out, about how they're the TW equivalent of being knighted and those who wear them proudly below their handles are the perpetrators of HolyCowism -- especially those 'premature' owners -- though I'm reluctant to post yet again in site feedback. I'll leave you with a final thought, however: While I agree that *all* the early adopters of customer titles have deserved them, have any of them received them without blatantly ass-kissing the admin &c. ?

1) Ohro screwed up her mod duties and tried to cover up by getting K to provide an alibi; however2) K screwed up and lied also.

Yes, there was a mods forum thread about the account hackings. However, it was created three days after Ohro banned the first offender and consisted of only Ohro saying "oh, by the way I banned this IP for trying to heist a password" and me later replying that I had banned another IP for the same reason. There was no conversation, I do not know if Adam or EJ ever even read the thread.

Mind you, I never said there wasn't a thread in the mods forum about the password heisting. What I did say was that, unlike what you seemed to think, password heisting was not the subject of the "pictures! of marquis' bottom?, please" thread and hence any conversation related to that thread (including your "freedom of information" thread) are not proof to whether or not the mods conferred about banning the IP adresses. Which they didn't do, and even the thread in the mods forum about password heisting was created a day after the last post was made to the freedom of information thread. Adam or EJ posted nothing related to the password heisting on the mods forum. There was no conferring, Ohro acted solo.

Incidentally, how am I defending her if I'm in fact accusing her of working against the guidelines?

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Does his daily limit still apply, or are you going to let him off......again?

Stu has a point: TWs biggest mong has exceeded his limit for the second time.

You can't use the fact that he is responding to an insult by TW's handsomest poster as an excuse: 50 percent of posts at this site are insults towards him, whether he chooses to accept them as such or not.

Now ban him, before Stu and I have to waste valuable insulting time agreeing with each other

In some Let's-find-a-scapegoat-ish nazi way it is indeed over the limit. But if the rule was developed to protect the quality of the board it still fulfilled its purpose and therefore can't be considered as willingly broken. Especially after the kind of insult thrown at him, Dogz should be awarded 50 bonus posts for the next week.

In some Let's-find-a-scapegoat-ish nazi way it is indeed over the limit.

Dude, your grandparents probably tried to exterminate mine. Don't throw the nazi tag at me. And as for the subject at hand, I think rules are made to be abided by. I mean, dogz could have just edited his post to keep responding like he does with every second fucking post he does now. Remember: he had his second chance.

In reply to:

But if the rule was developed to protect the quality of the board it still fulfilled its purpose and therefore can't be considered as willingly broken.

But...it didn't. I see absolutely no difference between the boards now and the boards before.

In reply to:

Especially after the kind of insult thrown at him, Dogz should be awarded 50 bonus posts for the next week.

Nope, they are made to fulfill a purpose. And as I pointed out before, the rule works and the board is not flooded with crap, no matter whether it are 5 or 6 posts. If the moderators would just control that the rules are abided without looking at each case, a lot more posters in here would have been kicked out before.

In reply to:

I see absolutely no difference between the boards now and the boards before.

Well, it might be that the whole thing is not about Dogz but about the overall quality. Perhaps there is really not increased quality though Dogz posts less. In that case I don't see, why you care for the 5 post rule at all. Because it does not make any difference. However, the moderators already decided that this is the way to go. Phoenix gave it a chance. If you can't, it is not necessarily Dogz' fault.

In reply to:

Do you ever ask random strangers for money because someone insulted your mother?

No, normally inappropriate behavior which is that well documented is a case for some judge, while having common conversations normally is not punished. It is funny that you think it is a reason for banning if someone posts ten times a day, while it is perfectly okay for you that someone posts the most tasteless insults.

In reply to:

Don't throw the nazi tag at me.

I just threw it into the room, but I guess it has a reason that you picked it up.

I'm strongly starting to consider banning everyone who purposefully flings shit at Dogz in an attempt to anger him and make him go over the daily limit.

I'm fucking tired of this shit, this place has gone to the dogs ever since PENIX decided to start an anti-dogz campaign again. Stop complaining and trying to find a scapegoat. It mightn'd have occurred to you that while you're bashing Dogz, you aren't contributing anything to this site either. You're contributing even less than Dogz who at least thinks he's saying something important when he's starting a new thread of making a post in a thread not about himself, whereas you know you're not posting anything useful when you make a post about Dogz.

Personally I'm not banning Dogz even if he exceeds the stupid daily restriction. There are reasons why people need to be banned and someone pissing you off is not one of them.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

K: Yes, there was a mods forum thread about the account hackings. However, it was created three days after Ohro banned the first offender and consisted of only Ohro saying "oh, by the way I banned this IP for trying to heist a password" and me later replying that I had banned another IP for the same reason..

Thank you for clarifying this point. Your previous post gave the impression that the thread dated from before b_mardle's banning.

In reply to:

K: Incidentally, how am I defending her if I'm in fact accusing her of working against the guidelines?

Well, you would have been if there had been a thread opposite to the effect described in the first quotation. But since there wasn't, you weren't.

Now, the only further point I wish to pursue on the original topic is whether there is some sort of 'refresher course' or 'mod mentoring scheme' to train Ohro to follow official procedures; or perhaps she could wear an 'L Plate' as her avatar, to show that she's still in the process of learning the job? I have the deepest respect of Ohro as a poster and I want her to become an excellent moderator.

I'll leave that to discuss amongst yourselves.

And now on to your fascinating most recent post:

In reply to:

K: I'm strongly starting to consider banning everyone who purposefully flings shit at Dogz in an attempt to anger him and make him go over the daily limit.

I honestly can't say I've seen any such behaviour on the boards and certainly hope that you don't consider myself to be in that number. Lest you think I am, I shall re-bozo Dogz presently so that I shall be unable to read his responses, making his replying to any of my posts futile.

But since you do consider such activity to be going on, what exactly counts as shit-slinging? Starting threads about him (which I have never done)? Or replying to his posts where one disagrees with his statements (since we know this is almost certain to generate a reply)? Or reply, even, in normal pleasant conversation to his posts (since this, too, is almost certain to generate a reply)? I imagine the nature of TW as a relatively small forum will make it almost impossible for me not to mention him occasionally, but, since you seem fairly adamant in this new rule, I also want to make it perfectly clear that I do not want Dogz to reply to my posts as I will be unable to read them.

In reply to:

K: You're contributing even less than Dogz who at least thinks he's saying something important when he's starting a new thread of making a post in a thread not about himself, whereas you know you're not posting anything useful when you make a post about Dogz.

1) 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'.2) How do you know what Dogz is thinking?

In reply to:

K: Personally I'm not banning Dogz even if he exceeds the stupid daily restriction. There are reasons why people need to be banned and someone pissing you off is not one of them.

This is obfuscation. All posters who were ever banned were banned because they pissed somebody off. B_Mardel (however you spell his surname) was banned because he, annoyingly, reset people's passwords. Aleczandah was banned because he, annoyingly, 'mushed up the boards with nonsense', according to Emil. Altoid was banned because he, annoyingly, only had one message to post variations of; and I imagine the same went for tumble_n_ twirl and all the other 'I know of only one sentence' alter egos. Dogz was banned originally for 'excessive irritation of the hoi polloi', or some such. Posters are banned *precisely* because they piss people off.

The issue with Dogz is his repeated flooding of threads. Now you said earlier in this thread that you don't believe that Dogz is flooding at the moment. This I believe owes a good deal to his daily limitation, and I think many posters agree. Perhaps you personally disagree. Anyhow, you'd better believe I'm more than willing to argue this out through PMs if you don't want it clogging up the boards no more.

This was the Gospel According to Auntie Prism.TW: Amen

Sweetness, sweetness I was only joking when I said I'd like to smash every tooth in your head . . .

Thank you for clarifying this point. Your previous post gave the impression that the thread dated from before b_mardle's banning.

My mistake, then.

Regarding Ohro, I'm not the person qualified to make any decisions on her regard. Of course I can talk about this with her but since we're if equal status I can't force her to do or not do something.

Regarding my rather heated post about Dogz... first of all, I wasn't being serious about banning people. I realise people might take it literally but that was not my intention, and I believe the points I made later against banning Dogz also gave a hint to that direction.

I feel that Dogz is being made into scapegoat here. TW isn't as active as it has been, we've lost some good posters and there aren't many new ones coming in, and people need to blame this on someone... so they pick the most obvious target, the mass-posting guy who seemingly isn't as intelligent as the majority of posters*. So people start bullying the weak, doing their best to have him ejected because they think this will solve all the problems. And of course it won't.

I realise that the best counter-argument to this is saying that Dogz has caused a lot of posters to leave. But I ask you, in the name of all honesty, is he really that annoying that all by himself he has caused a mass exodus from TW? Or is his presece just a contributing factor (and in some cases the straw that breaks the camel's back)?

For the record, I'm not saying that you shouldn't dislike Dogz, and that even if you do you should behave nice to him. But you should stop talking about him all the time, because that accomplishes absolutely nothing except hasten the decay of these boards.

* = Before I get another angry PM: I'm not saying Dogz is stupid, just that he does sometimes comes across as such. And that he perhaps is percieved to be stupid by a number of posters. Hence making him an easy target.

In reply to:

All posters who were ever banned were banned because they pissed somebody off.

If we get into this conversation, I'll lose. I know it. Never the less I'll adress your points and then watch you shoot them down.

b_mardle: He was annoying people, yes, but by trying to steal their passwords he also could have locked out people from TW, if a poster had an e-mail adress that is no longer active listed on the fan registry (as was my case for a while). In this case they would have never recieved the new password and hence could no longer access their account.

Altoid, Tumble 'n' Twirl and all the other one-liners: The difference between these and Dogz is that Dogz sometimes actually contributes something to the site. Unlike a poster whose all posts just say "That's Fantastic!".

Dogz: As has been stated several times on this thread, before his first ban he was hostile towards other users and really flooding the whole forum. Although he still posts more than an average (active) poster, he's nowhere near the numbers he was in before his ban. Personally I don't think he posted too much even before his recent restriction. That said I don't read everything that goes on Coffee Shop so a lot of his posts might pass me by and hence I admit I'm not the person to judge his conduct in that forum.

With Alex I could not say because what took place with him happened before my time (or when I was absent otherwise).

The final point stands however: Dogz contributes something to the site, at least the Bowie Talk section. To the best of my knowledge the other posters who have been banned either did not or (in the case of Billy Mardle) were actually trying to harm other posters in some way.

This post is far too long. But to wrap things up: people are not being fair on Dogz. He certainly isn't the best poster on these boards, but for all his flaws he certainly does not deserve to be banned, for the reasons outlined above.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Well said, K. One's opinion of a poster should not be a reason to ban him. I think when the 5 post rule was established, it was a compromise on the spot. I think the people making the 'past the mark' posts just want him out of here, and to me that is a form of extermination as opposed to enforcing a limit on frivolous posts.

I see no problem with the current posting situations at hand and I agree with K that the 'He's exceeding the limit' post is just as a waste of space as what some say dogz posts are, but I wouldn't want to impose a banning just because of that.

Also, in conversation piece, I see that forum more as a 'chat' kind of MB and so frivolous comments can be made in abundance by anyone since it is like a flow of dialogue as opposed to information and questions.

Plus, people who ride the wave of their own sense of intellectual superiority are a nuisance in my book. People come from different worlds and to my experience Dogz has some insight on things and maybe some of the information he can bestow has not seen the light of day given other peoples' ruminations in their own paradigms.

I think you're getting way way off track here along with a lot of other people. A lot of Anti-Banning-Dogz people are trying to say that those of us who feel arrogant or more intelligent want him banned because he's percieved as stupid.

I've wiped the slate clean, as I said before, and while there's no brilliance in his posts I don't feel the need to bash him for any lack of intellect. I'm sure a lot of other angry anti-Dogz posters are still sore over outrageous things he said in the past.

My beef was, and is if it happens again, that he tends to post many many times in every single thread. Conversations and topics are derailed, people get annoyed, and he starts posting more and more and more. This ridiculous state of affairs would not be tolerated anywhere else.

So my "campaign" was :

1 - A dumb poster? Who cares.2 - Had a fight with a poster in the past? If it's a long time ago it's time to get over it - unless they're still attacking you because they're not over it.3 - Posts like Claude? - Fine by me. Claude stays mostly in his own threads and we have a choice if we want to join in on his strange three word picture threads.

4 - Posts in all the threads multiple times? - Moderators should simply tell him not to do this, and if he continues he should be banned. I don't like this whole "post limit" business. Moderators should judge for themselves what's excessive and for fucks sake take action when it's proper.

I've got no beef with Dogz at the moment. Sure, I poke a bit of fun but he seems to be fine with that.

But if he returns to what he was when I got back - I'll simply ask him, without resorting to insults or such - to please take it down a notch or two.

BUT - This whole "wanting Dogz banned because he's stupid" is a whole lot of paint to colour those of us who are sore over the whole affair in black. Just fling the daily limit out the window. I'll be just speaking my mind when things get bad again.

Has Dogz made TW a poor site to post messages on? He certainly was making the coffee shop his very own forum where everything had something to do with him. At the moment there's still a large amount of anger about.

Also, in conversation piece, I see that forum more as a 'chat' kind of MB and so frivolous comments can be made in abundance by anyone since it is like a flow of dialogue as opposed to information and questions.

Hey! Some of us live there you know! Non-coffee shop people don't know what it's like when a TWer commences saturation bombing. PMs are for chatting. That's the whole idea of PMs and of the rule (if it's still here) saying "no idle chit-chat" It's like those fuckers who loudly talk throughout an entire film at the cinema - "Why the fuck didn't you go to the park?? It would have cost you nothing!!"

Good point. I think on some threads in coffee shop it seems it would make more sense in a chat- like setting since it would eliminate trolling behavior or a ton of short-answer replies that would flood and destroy a mb. I'm not saying to have Dogz take over a chat room, but in his way of posting, it would better suit his style plus it is a lot quicker to have explanations and quicker replies and just have silliness on it. His 'dumb' posts would make more sense in a chat context I think, but I can't prove that yet IMO, when Dogz spends time for a response on a thread as he does on most Bowie related topics and even some coffeeshop threads, something of substance can be found

I wasn't saying you want Dogz banned because he is stupid. But his percieved lack of intelligense combined with his posting habits make him an easy target. As has been noted on this thread, Monkeyboy did pull off similar posting stints but no-one ever seriously asked him to be banned. I think (note, think, not know) that an important factor in this was that most of us know Monkeyboy is in fact frightfully intelligent. Try to argue with Monkeyboy and you'll lose no matter what. Try to argue with Dogz and you win every time.

As I said in my post, I'm not the person to judge Dogz' behaviour in Coffee Shop because I read only a fragment of the stuff that goes on in there. However I find his contributions to the News and Views forums to be valuable. And I don't think his being an arse in one forum of the six we have is really a proper reason to ban him. I also don't like the fact that we're developing double standards; one standard for Joe Average and a much higher standard that Dogz is supposed to abide.

"Are we making any progress?""None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

Dogz is one of the hardest nuts to crack in all my internet experience . I tell you, newbies are the real easy targets. Dogz just flings a bit of dung back and keeps on tickin' as always. Newbies slink off never to be heard of again. Dogz won't miss a beat. Dogz is not an easy target.

Plus, I've also (and you have too) had periods of saturating the boards with crap over a period. Of course, our instances of posting diarrhoea have not been sustained non-stop over a period of years. This counts for Monkeyboy as well. Surely you don't count Dogz as just an average poster being picked on. Dogz is far from the average poster, and I've never seen his like anywhere on message boards throughout the net. There's no double standards - If anyone did this over a long period - be it my bestest friend or whatever - I'd be first telling him "Hey man, why don't you slow down a bit" and then regrettably agreeing that if he can't control himself he should go.

If I decide to argue with Dogz, I know I won't win. He'll say something back and then not bother, only to continue as before. So I strongly disagree with you on that point.

But I will say that at the moment he's bearable. He is a little more like a 'Joe Average' and as such I don't have double standards. To say otherwise is blindly ignoring those frustrated by their threads being hijacked (whether by intent or not).

A decision has been made by the moderating crew but people are still discussing the situation as if that did not happen and as if Dogz was still posting in the style he had before his first ban. K agreed to the rule, so there is no need in discussing any further why a forum full of Dogz' posts are annoying. The anti-dogz fraction on the other hand should now be quiet and wait what happens. The 5 posts-rule has not failed yet.The movie poster thread for example is nothing which couldn't happen to anyone posting a lot of pics of himself (though of course it could have been interesting to see some more different members appearing in it). So I can't see a double-standard there. Even the more nasty attempts are still to a certain degree entertaining. R/R's answer on Dogz' thread would be somewhat harsh but understandable if it was for the Dogz three years ago. But meanwhile there is a different situation, so this attack on Dogz person (unlike the attack on that lame topic) was a bit over the top. It was made for insulting someone in a way completly out of the threads context. And the double standard lies exactly in justifying that attack, which when done to any other user would have had other consequences.

Perhaps the mods should somehow communicate and make clear whether they attempt to keep the rule or give in to the mob interested in banning dogz. In case they stick to the rule any discussion about what Dogz was before and the correct punishment gets completly invalid and Dogz has to be seen like any other poster one likes or dislikes and treated with the same respect as anybody else. Which is not much but at least a level on which the board still works as a community.

Then we all can wait some weeks and in the best case there is no need for further discussion. In the worst case someone is proven right.

I just wish he'd stop posting pics of that fucking mop-creature of his. Really, I'd promise to never hurl an insult in his direction again, as long as I never had to lay eyes on that wretched beast ever again.

Of course I agree th0mas. I just didn't want everybody forming the opinion that the initial reason for compaining was because we felt we were more intelligent and therefore superior and therefore a lot of us wanted him banned. This opinion seemed to be taking a hold in some people's minds.

My beef has always been his sheer volume of posts - the majority of them not adding anything to the thread topics he was posting in. I think most people were tired of this and in some the hatred caused by it has lingered even though the situation has improved to the point where I feel more comfortable here.

I know the 5 post rule has been implemented by the mods, and by the sounds of it they're sticking to it. I'm just not sure if every time Dogz posts 7 or 8 times in a particular forum it's not going to cause another outburst - so therefore I'm not 100% behind this rule. Let the rule go and just raise the matter (in a calm and straightforward manner) when it feels like he's getting carried away. I'm sure Dogz would then take care, but if not then appropriate action could be taken.

Yeah, but I just wanted to make it clear. If we start arguing over the ban/stupid keep/intelligent theory and leave the mass-posting behind anyone wading into the debate would get a very different impression of what's happening.

A bunch of people are attacking Dogz, and it's not because he's an easy target, it's because they still have a grudge over his many actions in the past. There are many many TWers that would leave if you attacked them 1/10th as much as Dogz has been attacked. I think they are easy targets. Dogz is like fucking Superman, indestructable.